Table 3.
Results of the methodological quality assessment*
| Question# | Point | Rating | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
| study ID | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | (9) | (10) | ||
| Delea 200734 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | UN | 9 | A |
| Luangasanatip 201135 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | UN | 9 | A |
| Karnon 201245 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | UN | 8 | B |
| Bentley 201346 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | UN | 9 | A |
| Ho 201347 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | A |
| Keshtkaran 201348 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | UN | 9 | A |
| Walczak 201349 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 7 | C |
| Pepe 201750 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | UN | 9 | A |
Y: yes, N: no, UN: uncertain.
Question: (1) Was a well-defined question posed in answerable form? (2) Was a comprehensive description of the competing alternatives given? (3) Was the effectiveness of the programs or services established? (4) Were all the important and relevant costs, and consequences for each alternative identified? (5) Were costs and consequences measured accurately in the appropriate physical units prior to valuation? (6) Were costs and consequences valued credibly? (7) Were costs and consequences adjusted for differential timing? (8)Was and incremental analysis of costs and consequences of alternatives performed? (9) Was uncertainty in the estimates of costs and consequences adequately characterized? (10) Did the presentation and discussion of study results include all issues of concern to users?